IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v15y2024i1p2-d1551306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rebuilding Participatory Institutions in Brazil: The PPA Participativo Between Corporate Demands and Climate and Animal Rights

Author

Listed:
  • Priscila Delgado de Carvalho

    (Department of Development, Agriculture and Society, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 23890-000, Brazil)

  • Priscila Zanandrez

    (Democracy Institute, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais 31270-901, Brazil)

  • Diego Matheus de Menezes

    (Democracy Institute, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais 31270-901, Brazil)

Abstract

In 2023, Brazil regained momentum in proposing innovative participatory institutions by launching a complex participatory experiment for budget planning within its “Multiannual Plan” (PPA). While this was not a scaled-up version of the local participatory budgeting plan that emerged decades earlier, its launch did reopen the debate on the possibilities of expanding political participation. The challenge was significant due to the intricate nature of budget planning and the complexity of the plan’s participatory design. This paper examines that experience by outlining the institutional design of the PPA Participativo and analyzing its results in terms of online participation. It also discusses the prominence of climate-related proposals, suggesting that the PPA Participativo serves as a relevant indicator of national concerns regarding climate-based issues. Building on previous experiences, the PPA Participativo is a strategy consisting of three layers: an online platform for digital participation, state-level meetings with civil society activists, and a high-level forum composed of members from national councils. This paper analyses some of the results from the online platform, which recorded 4 million visits from 1.5 million individual participants. These citizens were invited to submit proposals, vote for up to three proposals, and choose from a set of pre-designed government programs. The main concerns that emerged from this open-ended process included corporate demands, stemming from highly organized sectors, such as public health and education employees. However, animal rights also ranked among the most-voted proposals. The program of the Ministry of the Environment on climate change reached the top position in this segment, largely due to its strong campaigning strategy. This paper discusses these outcomes, drawing on evidence of both societal engagement and institutional activism to promote specific agendas.

Suggested Citation

  • Priscila Delgado de Carvalho & Priscila Zanandrez & Diego Matheus de Menezes, 2024. "Rebuilding Participatory Institutions in Brazil: The PPA Participativo Between Corporate Demands and Climate and Animal Rights," Societies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:15:y:2024:i:1:p:2-:d:1551306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/2/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/2/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yves Sintomer & Carsten Herzberg & Anja Röcke, 2008. "Participatory Budgeting in Europe: Potentials and Challenges," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 164-178, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cuenca Botey, Luis Emilio & Célérier, Laure, 2023. "On the relentless labour of deconstructing domination logics: The case of decolonial critical accounting research in South America," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 343-358.
    3. Philipp Horn & Diana Mitlin & Jhono Bennett & Beth Chitekwe-Biti & Jack Makau, 2018. "Towards citywide participatory planning: emerging community-led practices in three African cities," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 342018, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    4. Capaccioli, Andrea & Poderi, Giacomo & Bettega, Mela & D'Andrea, Vincenzo, 2017. "Exploring participatory energy budgeting as a policy instrument to foster energy justice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 621-630.
    5. repec:prg:jnlcfu:v:2022:y:2022:i:2:id:576 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Katarzyna Kołat & Marek Furmankiewicz & Magdalena Kalisiak-Mędelska, 2022. "What Are the Needs of City Dwellers in Terms of the Development of Public Spaces? A Case Study of Participatory Budgeting in Częstochowa, Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-21, April.
    7. Augsberger, Astraea & Collins, Mary Elizabeth & Gecker, Whitney & Lusk, Katharine & Zhao, Qianqian Jane, 2017. "“She treated us like we bring valid ideas to the table:” Youth experiences of a youth-led participatory budgeting process," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 243-249.
    8. Gabriela Nemtoi, 2019. "Deliberative Democracy Under the Influence of Populist Current," European Journal of Law and Public Administration, Editura LUMEN, vol. 6(2), pages 236-244, December.
    9. Giulio Mattiazzi & Vito Garramone & Lucia Lancerin & Francesco Musco, 2017. "Partecipazione pubblica in Veneto: verso una tecnologia dei processi decisionali," ECONOMIA E SOCIET? REGIONALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1), pages 81-98.
    10. Sergiu Gherghina & Paul Tap, 2021. "Ecology Projects and Participatory Budgeting: Enhancing Citizens’ Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-14, September.
    11. Carlos Smaniotto Costa & Juan A. García-Esparza & Kinga Kimic, 2024. "Participatory Budgeting and Placemaking: Concepts, Methods, and Practices," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9.
    12. Eva Tomaskova & Romana Buzkova, 2020. "Participatory Budgeting in Brno – Inspiration for Other Cities?," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 758-770.
    13. Dorota Bednarska-Olejniczak & Jarosław Olejniczak & Libuše Svobodová, 2019. "Towards a Smart and Sustainable City with the Involvement of Public Participation—The Case of Wroclaw," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-33, January.
    14. Kędra, Arleta & Maleszyk, Piotr & Visvizi, Anna, 2023. "Engaging citizens in land use policy in the smart city context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    15. Harriet Bulkeley & Andrés Luque-Ayala & Colin McFarlane & Gordon MacLeod, 2018. "Enhancing urban autonomy: Towards a new political project for cities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(4), pages 702-719, March.
    16. Tim Bunnell, 2015. "Antecedent Cities and Inter-referencing Effects: Learning from and Extending Beyond Critiques of Neoliberalisation," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(11), pages 1983-2000, August.
    17. Dubicki, Piotr, 2021. "Budżet obywatelski jako element partycypacji społecznej," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, April.
    18. Gomez, J. & Insua, D. Rios & Lavin, J.M. & Alfaro, C., 2013. "On deciding how to decide: Designing participatory budget processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(3), pages 743-750.
    19. Nejc Brezovar & Tatjana Stanimirovic, 2022. "Sustainability aspects of participatory budgeting at the municipal level in Slovenia," Public Sector Economics, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 46(4), pages 569-589.
    20. Barbara Lipietz, 2008. "Building a Vision for the Post‐Apartheid City: What Role for Participation in Johannesburg's City Development Strategy?," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 135-163, March.
    21. Sergio Montero & Gianpaolo Baiocchi, 2022. "A posteriori comparisons, repeated instances and urban policy mobilities: What ‘best practices’ leave behind," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 59(8), pages 1536-1555, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:15:y:2024:i:1:p:2-:d:1551306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.